|
|
|
|
|
| she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/11/2007 2:16:31 PM | Though we differ in opinions maybe we can agree that a certain protocol should ALWAYS be followed in which the subject of pregnancy or STD's should be discussed before engaging in intercourse. A mood killer? Sure... Better to kill a mood than a life- or each other with AIDS.
I f the woman is honest enough to admit she wants a baby then the man can and should make a mature decision as to whether or not to continue - especially if he is just in it for a piece of tail as most single guys are. By the same token, the guy should stress from the onset that he is not looking to become a father and if she sends him on his way, then he has saved himself 216 child support payments(minimum) and saved us taxpayers from subsidizing yet another child born without 2 loving, committed parents. | |
|
| she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/11/2007 2:19:25 PM | Here are two peices of advice for all of you kids:
1) Never discuss sex, religion, or politics, and especially politics on a sex (OK sure, dating) site.
2) There will be no bun in the oven if you stick to butt lovin'. | |
|
| she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/11/2007 3:27:12 PM | mojo says """Now to return to reality, where both partners are involved. As above, both partners are responsible for the pregnancy. Each contributed to its creation by their own choice. This means that the man has agreed to the risk of pregnancy. It doesn't mean he agrees to whatever she might decide to do with it any more than it means she agrees to whatever he wants to do with it. It's as much his as it is hers, since he's contributed to it as well, so his say should be equally as valid. ""
i have said this before,, and you denied it was the truth. but you keep on it anyway. so it would appear that your logic is thus>> that he was only assuming the risk of conception even though he knew he was not going to have a say in the matter after the blue line appeared. if pregnancy didnt result often in the birth of a child, then your logic would fit. but as it is, pregnancy does often result in a full term healthy birth, so he is still responsible even if it was not his intent or desire to be a parent.
lets take this mark by mark
reality,, yes both were involved, yes both assume all responsibilty for consequences of their actions, yes, she knows that pregnancy, among other things is a very real possibility where she will be faced with some serious decisions. she also has to consider that she may be raising this child without any input from this man.
this does not however preclude him from the responsibility. it still remains as such, weather he ows up to it is another matter entirely.
if we go with your logic mojo, we can honestly say that "both parners are responsible for the conception" which is true. i think where you veer off course is when you figure its logical that he is not further responsible if his desire was not to be a father. sorry hon, it doesnt work this way. because he knew pregnancy was a risk, (PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THIS PART IN THE QUOTATIONS)"and he knew that he was not going to have a say in weather or not this child was carried to term", he accepted that. he agreed to the sex knowing he had no say, so yes, he is responsible for his actions because he knew he had no say in the matter after the sex.
HIS RISKS WERE TWOFOLD>>
pregnancy and no say in the choices of the mother. he knew that was part of the dynamic, so its logical that he accepts that when he engages in sex.
perhaps its true on some level his say afterward should be equally as valid. but alas, biology and the law doesnt agree with that notion. if he seriously wants a say so in the matter, he should either have a vasectomy, or not have sex. | |
|
| she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/11/2007 5:38:50 PM | mojo, i am going to ask this really bluntly,,
why is it you feel that the mans responsibilty ends when his wishes are not considered/granted in regards to the pregnancy beyond conception.
what specifically, precludes him from responsibility at that point?
please be direct, short and specific. | |
|
| she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/11/2007 7:04:23 PM | My "excuse" my dear was that I was married. He left when things got tough.
All I'm saying is that a man & women need to take care of things, if she got preggo's then he needs to step up. Its very simple now a days. The courts see to it all and I hope she makes him take be the responsible parent. You never know....it just might be the best thing he ever did in life.
 | |
|
| she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/12/2007 6:11:10 AM | Just read ur posted message on this: lela_haha,
A baby isnt a baby until it arrives???? What the hell ru on?
A baby whether u can c it or not is still there, is still formed of living organisms, still got a brain, still got a heart beat, still feeding off its mother. How can u say that its nothing til its born.
A child is concieved for a reason, everything happens for a reason. What if she was meant t be a mother or that was her calling. When it comes down to it, this sort of question shouldnt be asked over the internet for fear of attracting people who think they have the right to control who lives and who dies.
Just think for 1 min all those mothers-to-be who, unfortunatly lost there unborn children to miscarriages, just think how they would feel hearing that there child meant nothing because it wasnt born yet.
Maybe u should leave these forums be, and keep ur opinions to urself, because from what Ive heard ur heartless, completely.
The decicion should be left entirely to the concerned.
And as harsh as this may sound, god help u if u ever get pregnant. | |
|
| she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/12/2007 9:51:58 AM | My logic is pretty straightforward, actually. It amounts to this single statement:
No person is responsible for the choices made by another person (or) You cannot be held responsible for events over which you have no control.
If I choose to drive drunk, it is my choice and I'm solely responsible for the consequences (though, around here, bars are held responsible for the drunkenness of their patrons, which I don't agree with either).
If I choose to bungee jump using a hair elastic, the consequences are entirely my responsibility.
If I choose to have sex, I'm responsibile for the consequences of that choice. That means that in the event of pregnancy, I'm responsible for the child, unless I discharge that responsibility by removing that which I'm responsible for via adoption or abortion.
If someone else chooses to undo or prevent that removal, that's not my choice, and I cannot be held responsible for that (as in the drunk scenario, he discharges his responsibility by calling a cab. If the cab subequently crashes, it's not the drunk's fault).
and he knew that he was not going to have a say in weather or not this child was carried to term...
Quite so. If this statement were true, then the responsibility would remain his, as you say. However, as I've said, he cannot be held responsible for the choices and actions of someone else. Put another way, if he has no choice, then she has no choice either. That's the only way to make the situation equal (which, as I pointed out, would be necessary to be legal). Of course, that notion is ludicrous, so we're left with allowing him a choice as the only sensible alternative. | |
|
| she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/12/2007 10:18:32 AM | yep its her body she can do what she wants end of! | |
|
| she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/12/2007 10:30:52 AM | Dearest PetriDish , this is a typical feminist diatribe using the example you did. An STD such as AIDS is never a sought after consequence and you trivialize it as such. Obviously there is NO sane woman who is indifferent or apathetic about purposefully trying to contract a disease. It is absurd by nature. Disease can kill. There has always been and will always be a contingency of gals from all walks of life who willingly and wantonly expose themselves to risky sexual behavior for the express purpose of becoming pregnant just as there are an equal if not greater number of idiots who will gladly oblige them under the guise of consensual sex. Sure, these guys are stupid but they should not have fatherhood forced on them if they did not desire it or were somehow deceived that their sexual encounter was purely for the purpose of MUTUAL pleasure. People are always going to have sex and there are far more methods of birth control available to women than there are for men. The unplanned child loses out by this sort of treachery and that is generally what it boils down to. The ONLY winners here are the lawyers, state, and the courts who get their cut regardless of what becomes of the kid or the couple. | |
|
| she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/12/2007 10:56:15 AM | | I don't see Trish's point as a strictly feminist position, and she's certainly not resorted to diatribe (yet!). In fact she makes a salient point. If the man is aware that he's effectively agreeing to not have a right to choice after the fact, then he's responsible for the consequences of that choice (ie. He chose to give up his right to choose). | |
|
| she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/12/2007 11:06:20 AM | | I can agree with this in principle. It is sad that most saps who get into this mess would have no idea of what you just wrote and so ignorance prevails and so you see these mugs on the Maury Povich show making great TV but an even sorrier statement of our society in regards to relationships. | |
|
| she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/12/2007 11:58:27 AM |
im sorry golddigger, that wasnt really funny, in fact it wasnt funny at all. it was a narrative of two pathetic ppl torturing eachother.
the real moral of that story is know who you are dealing with before you have sex with them.
"""I assumed that after 30, women stopped going after musicians, bikers, criminals, and thugs. Silly me for thinking the best of American women. """"
how did musicians and bikers get associated with thugs and criminals? but eh,, its from craigslist, what can you expect?
Trish, I wasn't posting that story to be 'funny".
It was simply a message saying to both men and women to protect themselves from whatever they may NOT want to happen.
And I believe the man in the story was saying that he thought that after 30 yrs, a woman stopped going after the "Bad Boy". | |
|
| she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/12/2007 1:49:48 PM | but he did make the choice, he made the choice to run the risk of producing offspring knowing that he would not be in a position to abort it. he took upon those risks, thereby assuming responsibility for it. you can say it all day and night, but the two are part of one, they are not able to be separated.
i guess what i really dont understand is why otherwise normal thinking men seem to think the two things are not related. how is it you can say i wanted to have sex but i assume no liability for the consequences. ?
answer?? THEY ARENT ACTUAL MEN, they are boys masquerading as men. bottom line, your logic isnt logic. its a lame excuse for not simply saying no to the sex. | |
|
| she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/12/2007 1:56:35 PM | first off,, disecting my alias like that is not only childish, its against the rules.
secondly, its not typical, nor is it feminist,, i would not be caught dead being a lesbo feminist. you obviously missed the point of the example used. further,, childbirth can also kill, or hadnt you heard?
fatherhood isnt forced,,, its a choice, unless he was raped. if he chose to have the sex then he also chooses the consequences. its just that simple
birth control, with the exception of abstinence and or sterilization, fails. | |
|
| she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/12/2007 1:58:29 PM | Again, I disagree. I understand what you're saying, but it seems to me unfair to give men one choice and women two. That is:
1) choose to have sex or not.
2) choose to be a parent or not.
Women have both choices to make, while men have only one? Women can have sex and choose to have no liability for the consequences, why not men?
That said, I agree that any man unwilling to take responsibility for his own offspring, regardless of logic or any other argument, is unworthy to be called a MAN. | |
|
| she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/12/2007 2:15:35 PM | Women have both choices to make, while men have only one? Women can have sex and choose to have no liability for the consequences, why not men?
it doesnt matter why they dont, the fact is they dont, and they know that "going in"
(i would say no pun intended, but you must know me better than that. so i will say a little pun intended)
if your logic fits, then its fair to say
man smokes two packs a day for ten yrs,,
should not have to face cancer as a result of his actions cuz no one would chose such a thing.
he loves the taste, drawing the smoke in, feeling the warmth,, watching the glowing ember,, etc,,
he enjoys the act, all the while assuming the risks. | |
|
| she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/12/2007 3:27:28 PM | While it may be true that men don't have that choice, I don't think it doesn't matter. Quite the contrary. I think it's the crux of the issue. Someday someone is going to challenge the law on the basis of this very point, I think. I'll be watching with interest.
(I'd have been disappointed if you didn't mean the pun!) 
The example is not quite complete. It should refer to cancer by second hand smoke in someone else (just as the pregnancy happens to someone else by virtue of his actions).
If he risks the cancer (with her acceptance, because she likes the smell of cigars), but also knows there's a cure (ie. he can risk a pregnancy knowing there's a "cure"), then he can't be held responsible for the cancer if she won't use the cure. Yes, it's because of his cigar (is this cigar really a cigar?), but she's responsible for not taking the cure, and therefore all subsequent consequences.
You choose excellent examples, I must say. | |
|
| she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/12/2007 3:55:02 PM | Goldigger, I must say that I loved that story. I would love it more if you would have not kept your secret (then how would it work?) You just pick a better woman next time. If you were just looking to get laid, then...good job!
If you intentionally kept this info from her, that is wrong. Although I admit that she deserved it (thank God you used a condom). Other women may not deserve it. If they want to have kids, then that three months was a waste of time. The right woman would not need to TRAP you. This woman was an idiot. If it were the other way around and a man really wanted a child and his woman hid the fact that she was sterile, that would be a lie because it was ommitted. This is why communication is so important.
All you had to do was ask her if she ever wanted kids. If you played your cards right, she would say, "yes, darling!" Then you would tell her you cannot give her a child and then she would have the choice of staying or going. The fact that she was "easy on the eyes and a good lay", is why you hid this from her and in my opinion makes you just as evil. Sounds like you two deserved each other. You are both manipulative.  | |
|
| she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/12/2007 4:47:57 PM | | so has anyone got an idea of how to ask peoples views on abortion without the thread getting deleted and people frecking out on ya yet? I really like to find out others views but don't wanna get into another defensive match like last time and ended up telling off a lot of children on here for over reacting.ideas???ideas??? | |
|
| she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/12/2007 6:50:35 PM |
he cannot be held responsible for the choices and actions of someone else. Put another way, if he has no choice, then she has no choice either. That's the only way to make the situation equal (which, as I pointed out, would be necessary to be legal). Of course, that notion is ludicrous, so we're left with allowing him a choice as the only sensible alternative.
From a legal standpoint, you most certainly CAN be held responsible for the actions of another, namely minor children. For choices, as well, evidenced by this very topic, along with accomplice type charges. To apply logic equally to the genders in regards to pregnancy, however, I agree there would have to be equality to begin with. Since men cannot get pregnant, that cannot be done, unless we agree that the responsibility begins the moment you disrobe. At that moment things are indeed equal; he is allowed the same choice, being aware of the potential consequences in all their "unfairness". Men cannot have or force abortions (rightly so, imo) so they have to make their choice before they take the risk of impregnating anyone. Simple fact of life, imperfect logic & all. | |
|
| she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/12/2007 6:59:50 PM | perhaps someone will be nuts enough to challenge this in court one day. and i expect that they will have it explained to them in great detail, you assumed the risk when you agreed to the sex.
its not the specific story as much as it is what i said at first, its a point of law,,
assumed liability.
during this entire thread with you ( which i have thoroughly enjoyed btw) i had made a call to an old friend. a lawyer who deals primarily in criminal law.
he explained to me, that under the law there is a thing called assumed liability, which says exactly what i have been saying all along.
he knew the risks and still consented freely to the sex. i read to my friend your contention on the matter, he said thats flawed logic as it pertains to the law. your statement is such that the two things become seperate issues when in fact they are not able to be separated as it pertains to the point of law.
this friend explained to me some years ago, that for the most part, lawyers do not argue cases. they argue points of law and give evidence to support their contentions.
he said that the only way this person would be excused even partially from his responsibility would be if he didnt understand the consequences as a result of a mental deficiency. even then the law is fairly straight forward,, because pregnancy is a risk and because the man has no choice in abortion, the liability is assumed.
you are playing devils advocate, i understand that, but practically speaking, your p.o.v. doesnt wash.
this is probably best left to email at this point, because i fear we have taken over the thread.
i do hope though, that the op can gain some insight from what we have shared here and i wish her the best. i would also wish on her some "hooked on phonics" | |
|
| she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/12/2007 8:03:36 PM | i'm sorry, but you gotta love the beginning of this post "it's not me, but i need advice for a friend..." excuse me while i whip off the water off my screen i just spit all over.
okay -- i just asked "my friend" what "he" would do and he said --- DON'T SEEK ADVICE FOR OTHER PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!
...but have a great evening. | |
|
| she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/12/2007 9:17:01 PM | That's quite interesting. I wonder if the "assumed liability" aspect of the law would be considered constitutional in Canada. It seems (at first glance) to violate the right to equality, as well as making a presumption of "guilt," both of which have resulted in laws being struck down. Of course, we have a legal recourse to override such concerns under certain conditions ( I don't know if the US has anything similar - in my experience, US Law seems somewhat less flexible).
Very interesting, though. I may have to look into it further.
I agree wholeheartedly in your final sentiments. The discussion went off in its own direction, and has been relatively calmly discussed, all things considered. I wish only the best to the OP and her friend. | |
|
| she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/13/2007 3:35:24 AM |
At that moment things are indeed equal; he is allowed the same choice, being aware of the potential consequences in all their "unfairness". Men cannot have or force abortions (rightly so, imo) so they have to make their choice before they take the risk of impregnating anyone. Simple fact of life, imperfect logic & all.
Are they?
Common views when its the man who doesnt want a baby are
"he knew the risk that a baby could be concieved when he had sex and he should therefore have to accept responsibility for the baby"
Equality would be
"THEY knew the risk that a baby could be concieved when THEY had sex and should THEY should therefore have to accept responsibility for the baby"
Thats equal is it not?
Also when its the man who doesnt want a child
"He should just accept that its a baby, and a life and not simply an inconvenience to be "solved", if he didnt want to risk that "inconvenience" then he shouldnt have had sex"
and
"For him to want an abortion shows he has no concept of the emotions and psychological impact aborting your baby will cause, so to selfishly want one is inconsiderate and abhorent"
So when a woman wants an abortion the view that
"She should just accept that its a baby, and a life and not simply an inconvenience to be "solved", if SHE didnt want to risk that "inconvenience" then SHE shouldnt have had sex"
"For HER to want an abortion shows SHE has no concept of the emotions and psychological impact aborting your baby will cause, so to selfishly want one is inconsiderate and abhorent"
Thats equal
And the "well if he didnt wear a condom he has to just accept the outcome"
Yet we have had femidoms for decades, but how many women are bothered enough about their sexual health to use one?
So
"well if SHE didnt wear a condom SHE has to just accept the outcome"
is a more equalitarian view
The other common undertone on the topic is almost as tho women have no free will
As tho women CANT say no if a man doesnt have a condom on which is far from the case and is quite insulting to women en masse really
At no point during the lead up to sex is it "definite", so if it gets to the pre coital stage and turns out that they dont have, or have run out of condoms then it IS the woman who has the final say one whether intercourse occurs and the CAN simply say "so glove, no love" after all, its HER body as is frequently bandied about and SHE has total control over what happens to it or enters it
But its painted as tho women turn into automaton sex machines in the presence of a penis, and therefore dont have to be respnsible for THEIR decisions or actions
Which IS, however dressed up both sexist and INequal when that same consideration isnt extended to both genders
The main points here as I see them are that it wouldnt take much to make the situation somewhere approaching "fair", either by removing the legality of abortion so both genders are EQUALLY responsible for the results of them having sex or by some degree of separation where a woman retains the choice to abort
We could easily push for and introduce some format for disclosure and transparency as HAS been achieved where statutory rape vs consentual sex has occured and also where things like aids are concerned
Because you could EQUALLY argue that if someone has sex with someone who has aids then they make their own choice knowing the person COULD have aids, and then have to simply accept the consequences. And yet most forward thinking societies accept that some people WILL deliberately have unprotected sex with someone who EQUALLY has unprotected sex with them, but also that because they KNOW they have aids they are prosecuteable for doing it
Now a woman who KNOWS she either wants a baby or wont have an abortion who doesnt disclose that upfront is no less devisive than the aids carrier. She has a known or implicative agenda that she is keeping secret, and whereas the law courts in many countries have concluded that the onus to point out to a partner someone has aids otherwise they are totally culpable for the results its hardly a major stretch to apply similar rulings to someone not equally disclosing their baby aims or their objection to the concept of abortion or be culpable as a result
Where a condom has burst or a woman forgot to take a pill and had unprotected sex ONLY she can take the morning after pill which would in most cases prevent a pregnancy, so we could also push for a law that says if one wasnt taken then the pregnancy wasnt simply an "accident", but was actually tantamount to a conscious decision or a choice made via apathy, but is also still solely the "choice" of the woman as men have no part to play in that and would never know if a pill has been missed or if the womans diet interferes with the pills effectivenes
Although the genders have different physiologies thats pretty much irrelevant when youre looking at the act of sex itself and a conception of a few hours or a day
And to try to hide behind "maternal" mentalities re a foetus ONLY when someone wants to unilaterally keep a baby, but ignore it totally when they want the abortion is a double standard and lacks cohesion especially when a man not wanting a child is classed as some "heartless monster baby killer" whereas the PAternal feelings of one who doesnt want an abortion where the woman does is seen as being totally irrelevant along with those feelings
Those and many other trains of thought, claims of "logic", feelings and views ARE almost without notice applied INequally on this and other topics even where they could just as easily be applied totally equally
And Mojo, you questioned the validity of someones comments re "feminist views" being expressed on the thread, but many of these mindsets and the uneven application of wording and reason does have much of its basis in the feminist movement as it has become quite radicalised over the years by the influence of quite extreme man hating views from women such as Andrea Dorkin who have pushed for quite inequal changes in the law of many countries and the rescindment of quite basic rights and human liberties for men under the guise of "protecting women"
For the most part where only a foetus is being discussed gender has no place, for many statements "they" and "both" can be substitured for he,him, her and she without their differing gender being in the slightest bit relevant. Similarly views can be static, rather than being conveniently swapped and changed to suit what a woman does or doesnt want to do as anything less lacks integrity of belief to some extent and is merely justification of an action rather than an actual moral or social belief
Obviously most of that is more applicable to casual sex or dating
But to claim that things are either "equal" or are as equal as they can be just shows a very tainted and skewed lack of objectivity or ability to think freely IMO | |
|
| she got pregnant!
Posted: 11/13/2007 3:53:33 AM | Much of what you say is true, there are deceptive people everywhere. All that leads to is caveat emptor (of sorts).  | |
|
|
| Page 12 of 16
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 |
|
Home
login 
